See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342729377

A Methodology to Use of RCX Straddle Packer Microfrac for the Determination of

Minimum Horizontal Stress in Vaca Muerta Formation

Conference Paper · July 2020

DOI: 10.2118/199159-MS

CITATIONS READS

0 1,114

6 authors, including:

Carlos Ferlaza Vladimir E. Merchan

ESIC Industrial University of Santander
2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 11 PUBLICATIONS 82 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Martin Paris Claudio Rabe

Baker Hughes Incorporated Baker Hughes Incorporated
8 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS 57 PUBLICATIONS 68 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Claudio Rabe on 10 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Please fill in the name of the event
LACPEC 2020
you are preparing this manuscript for.

Please fill in your 6-digit SPE

SPE-199159-MS
manuscript number.
A methodology to use of RCX Straddle Packer Microfrac for the determination of
Please fill in your manuscript title.
minimum horizontal stress in Vaca Muerta formation.

Please fill in your author name(s) and company affiliation.

Given Name Surname Company
Carlos Ferlaza YPF S.A.
Vladimir Merchán YPF S.A.
Claudia Teran YPF S.A.
Martin Paris Baker Hughes
Claudio Rabe Baker Hughes
Julio Baratcabal Baker Hughes

This template is provided to give authors a basic shell for preparing your manuscript for submittal to an SPE meeting or
event. Styles have been included (Head1, Head2, Para, FigCaption, etc) to give you an idea of how your finalized paper will
look before it is published by SPE. All manuscripts submitted to SPE will be extracted from this template and tagged into an
XML format; SPE’s standardized styles and fonts will be used when laying out the final manuscript. Links will be added to
your manuscript for references, tables, and equations. Figures and tables should be placed directly after the first paragraph
they are mentioned in. The technical content of your paper WILL NOT be changed. Please start your manuscript below.

Abstract
This paper describes the test protocols and procedures of RCX Straddle Packer Microfrac for the
estimation of formation Breakdown, fracture propagation and fracture closure pressure at different levels
in Vaca Muerta formation. As a result, the horizontal stress field can be estimated, which in turns allows
to infer if the fracture scheme and productivity agree well with initial prognosis.

Historically, this tool had been used for the estimation of formation pressure and fluid samples for
unconsolidated formations. However, a micro-fracture job, pump capacity, packer hermeticity and a well
design test protocol were the key to allow get formation breakdown, fracture propagation, fracture closure
through pumping flow back and fracture reopening in various cycles. Such procedure was performed at
two depths with success. Selection of the test intervals involved a preliminary geomechanical model for
the determination of stress conditions, mechanical properties and wellbore stability analysis to choose
proper mud density to reduce the probability of well damage (breakouts mainly), which can compromise
test hermeticity. Then, after drilling, well logs including wellbore image and caliper analysis enable the
determination of test intervals with minimum damage.

In the test well, Microfrac tests were performed successfully on two intervals out of four selected.
Interpretation allowed the estimation of closure pressure related to minimum horizontal stress. Moreover,
a rough estimation of maximum horizontal stress, based on breakdown pressure and closure pressure was
performed as well. Such results agree well with the initial geomechanical model. Strike slip regime was
confirmed in such a way that no alarms were set for future development through horizontal wells. But it
is necessary to make a deepper investigation to ensure a favorable anisotrophy stress ratio. Some areas
with unfavorable vertical to horizontal stress ratio, have been show low performance productivity. The
main advantages of this type of tests are: (i) the availability to acquire information through several depths
in a vertical well. (ii) Tests were performed in open hole conditions. (iii) Horizontal in situ stresses can be
estimated. (iv) Time efficiency in comparison with classical DFIT tests. (v) Calibration of geomechanical
model for future development.
2

Through the application of this tool, a new methodology was set, which allows for an early diagnose of
the horizontal stress field leading to the determination of stress regime. Therefore, if the worst-case
scenario appears related to inverse stress regime, development plans can be reorganized, reducing
potential economic losses, considering that, as had been demonstrated in Argentina, horizontal wells
placed on inverse regime led to EUR lower than breakeven.

Introduction
The development of unconventional resources had been a matter of important development during the
last decade. Due to its complextity, drilling and completion optimization efforts had been carried out to
reduce production costs. Nowadays, it is well known, that horizontal wells oriented parallell to the
minimum horizontal stress and a propper fracture design are key elements for the development of this type
of reservoirs. Moreover, it has been found that, among other factors, the actual stress regime has some
influence on production: normal and strike slip regimes agree well with good production records. On the
other hand, inverse regime (Shmax > Shmin > Sv), can be related to low production performance.
Therefore, not only horizontal stress directions are important, but also its magnitude for the determination
of the stress regime.

In the case of Argentina, the in-situ stress condition for Neuquén basin appears to be compressive,
so it is extremely important to characterize the in-situ stress state regime for Vaca Muerta Formation. The
geomechanical characterization not only affects the drilling but also the completion of the wells, largely
determining the growth of hydraulic fractures.

The estimation of key parameters like Breakdown pressure and fracture gradient using hydraulic
fractures is a practice that has begun more than 50 years ago (Khele, 1964). Further advances, studies and
test interpretations had been carried out by Cinco-Ley et al (1981, 1986), Hagoort (1981), Castillo (1987)
among others. Furthermore, performing this test with a wireline straddel packer tool is a relatively new
practice (Thiercilin et al. 1996) and is called Micro-Frac due to the small interval tested (3m aproximately)
and the low volume of fluid injected (around 30 liters).

To characterize the minimum horizontal stress, Diagnostic Fracture Injection Tests (DFITs) have long
been used in vertical pilot wells where casing was set at reservoir levels. However, this is not the case
nowadays in Argentina because of budget optimization terms. Vertical pilot wells are not completed at
Vaca Muerta levels, leading to a lack of tests using this technology and the absence of information prior
to drilling the horizontal wells. To overcome this issue, YPF and Baker Hughes established a methodology
to perform Micro-Frac tests by using the Straddle packer tool at open hole conditions in vertical pilot
wells. The quality of the data is assured by repeating the test 2 or 3 times, which is monitored in real time.

The methodology was applied on Chiuido de la Sierra Negra field (ChSN). This field was producing
since the early 80´s from conventional reservoirs. Nowadays, Vaca Muerta formation is considered for
unconventional development. One of the pilot vertical wells planned well was selected to perform the
Micro-Frac. As follows, the main characteristics of the tests are outlined, starting from a Geological
framework of the field, geomechanics model, tool operation, results, interpretation and finally a proposed
methodology to further tests on both conventional and unconventional reservoirs.
 3

Geological Framework
Chihuido de la Sierra Negra field is located at the North-west of Neuquén Basin, 45 Km from Rincon
de Los Sauces town. It is 368 km2 in area (See Figure 1). Historically, since the early 80s conventional
reservoirs like Avilé, lower Troncoso and Agrio formations had been exploited through 1650 wells.
Nowadays, secondary oil recovery is being performed in those conventional reservoirs. Just one well was
drilled with Vaca Muerta as a target. Recently, with the increase in unconventional activity, a series of
pilot wells had been proposed to study the potential of different levels of Vaca Muerta reservoir.

Figure 1. Location of Chihuido de la Sierra Negra Field.

This block is in the middle of the North-east side of the Neuquén Basin. Vaca Muerta formation shows a
simple monoclinal structure dipping to the SW in the area where the pilots wells were proposed (MD
interval 2000 to 2550m). A distinctive characteristic of this block is the presence of intrusive bodies
associated to the “Cerro Bayo de la Sierra Negra” laccolith. Additionally, normal and inverse faults had
been mapped affecting Vaca Muerta reservoir.

This area has the full stratigraphic column of the Neuquén Basin. The level of interest belongs to the
Mendoza Group starting with green Eolic sands corresponding to Tordillo formation. As can be seen on
Figure 2, above Tordillo, Quintuco-Vaca Muerta system can be described like a successive layer of silica-
clastic and carbonate mixtures deposited on a marine environment. Vaca Muerta formation is
characterized with successive thin layers of dark shale and lithographic lime-mudstones with rich organic
matter content. From the productivity view point, levels with total organic content (TOC) values higher
than 2% can be considered of interest.
4

Figure 2. Synthetic stratigraphic column of Neuquén Basin.

Geomechanics 1D model
Determination of the state of stress is a key parameter into the analysis of unconventional reservoirs. Not
only for wellbore stability analysis, but also for its impact on production and hydraulic fracture design. In
Figure 3, the general workflow is shown for the determination of the geomechanics framework. Colored
in green, appears the ideal set of calibration data. In the case of this field, main characteristics corresponds
to:

 Vertical stress was set by the integration of density logs of the offset wells.
 Mechanical properties for Vaca Muerta were obtained from laboratory data from one well and
complemented by correlations previously set by YPF for the same formation on other fields.
 Mechanical properties for shallow zones were obtained from literature and some laboratory data
available at Huitrin formation.
 Pore pressure was calibrated from formation pressure measurements for different wells for shallow
conventional reservoirs and data from DFITs at Vaca Muerta.
 5

 Closure pressure derived from DFITs was related to minimum horizontal stress (Shmin) at shallow
reservoir levels. However, at Vaca Muerta, only fracture gradients (ISIPs) were available. Such
values were assumed like upper limit for closure pressure and implies a certain level of uncertainty
for the model.
 Maximum horizontal stress was estimated by an iterative process where estimated and observed
breakouts (determined on a Wellbore Image) were properly set.
 Minimum and maximum horizontal stress direction were determined by breakouts orientation of
the wellbore image and checked by similar field data obtained on “Bajo del Toro” and “Filo
Morado” neighborhood fields.
 Wellbore stability assume Mohr – Coulomb failure criteria in the case of shear failure and a simple
tensile criterion was used for the determination of Breakdown pressure.

Figure 3. General workflow for the determination of wellbore stability analysis and the geomechanics input for Hydraulic fracture
design.

In Figure 4, the geomechanics model is shown for one of the offset wells. As seen, mechanical properties
and the state of stress were obtained. Such framework is applied to perform a prognosis of wellbore
stability of new pilot wells. Such wells are planned by drilling a vertical well covering all Vaca Muerta
levels. Then, horizontal wells are drilled navigating specific levels depending on petrophysical
characterization. Previously, most of the vertical wells accounted for completions in Vaca Muerta,
allowing DFITs tests to be performed. However, this is not the case nowadays for cost reasons. So, in the
case of pilot vertical wells, Vaca Muerta formation is not completed and open hole. Such scenario, leads
to the lack of DFITs tests on vertical pilot wells. This means that the minimum horizontal stress is not
checked by comparison with offset wells values, increasing the uncertainty of stress of possible stress field
variations.
6

Figure 4. 1D Geomechanics model for offset well A.

To overcome, such situation, in conjunction with Baker Hughes, a Microfrac equipment was adapted to
test Vaca Muerta formation at open hole status in this field. From this experience, a methodology is
proposed, allowing the calibration of minimum horizontal stress (Shmin), fracture gradient (ISIP) and a
rough determination of maximum horizontal stress (Shmax), obtained from breakdown pressure at the
walls of the wellbore. The methodology and the main aspects of the test are explained as follows.

Principles of Tool Operation

The main objective of Micro-Frac testing is to obtain quantitative down-hole formation breakdown,
fracture reopening, propagation and closure pressures in the client’s selected formations.
To perform the services, it is necessary to use RCI/RCX Straddle Packer service under “Injection
Mode”, a set of pumps (500 cc/stk and 36 cc/stk) and a straddle packer to achieve fracturing formation
pressure.

A pre-job meeting is needing to know well and formation conditions to “set” the tool properly for the service to be
performed. Calipers and well image must be carefully observed for the selection of the interval to fix the packers,
avoiding intervals with with borehole enlargments (breakout, washout) or intensely fractured intervals that
 7

make the seal difficult. Extensive breakouts compromise the sealing capacity of the inflatable elements,
high rugosity borehole wall could deteriorate the rubber during inflating and deflating of elements. Finally,
it is crucial for optimum fracture containment and proper fracture propagation that the inflatable elements
are positioned on layers with stress contrast with respect to the isolated formation interval in order to avoid
sleeve fracturing and early hydraulic communication between the fracture and the hydrostatic pressure.

Once the depth to perform the service was determined, the tool string was ran into the hole and set at
the desired depth. The packer elements are inflated to isolate the area to be tested. The used mud weight
was 1.5 S.G. (12.52 ppg). The dowhhole conditions included that the buttonhole temperature was 206.95
DegF with maximum straddle packer differential pressure was about 5200 psi.
The maximum differential pressure across the inflatable packers (absolute bottom hole pressure of the
isolated interval minus hydrostatic pressure) sustained by the RCI module depends on borehole size as
illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Straddle Packer Injection Pressure Limits

The maximum differential pressure inside the packers limits the injection pressure capability of
the RCI-Straddle-Packer tool for a MicroFrac operation.
The maximum differential pressure across the packers will decrease in large boreholes such as 8 ½ or 12
¼ inches. A packer integrity test is executed to check proper isolation (Figure 6).
8

Figure 6. Schematic of a Micro-Frac Test.

Using a high volume/high rate pump is injected fluid into the isolated area, while increasing fluid
volume the pressure between packer elements is increasing until formation breakdown pressure is reached
and the fluid goes into formation.
Continue pumping into formation to propagate fracture. Flowback to obtain fracture closure was done
in the last three cycles after attempting pressure rebound in the previous three cycles unsuccessfully. In
shale formations, leakoff rate is too low to allow mud solids to aggregate in the fracture, so no effective
plug is formed and therefore the pressure trapped in the fracture goes into fracture propagation and growth
(Feng et al., 2016).
Due to the low leak-off coefficient of the testing formations since the formation does not exhibit natural
leak-off pressure decline behavior, fracture closure identification in non-permeable shale formation
requires inducing the fracture to close by either bleeding the isolated pressure off or controlling a flow
back.
One methodology to induce fracture closure requires the use of a small volume pump with very low
flow rates (36 cc pump) with maximum flowrate of 9.5 cc/sec. The flow back rate using a small volume
pump is small compared to the injection rate such that the rate of pressure change corresponds to the
fracture closure response of the formation and not influenced by the flowrate.
Repeating this test at least 3 or 4 times, reopening pressure, propagation and closure pressure can be
achieved and determined (Figure 7).
 9

Figure 7. Micro-Frac Test chart

The service ends when packers are deflated, and the tool string is moved to another depth. The post job
involves the calculation of the closing pressure.

The fracture closure was identified by three different methods: (I) Pressure decline analysis using the
APQJ pressure vs. shut-in time and (II) Log-Log pressure decline analysis using the pressure derivative
of the delta pressure and delta time in log-log plot, and (III) G-function analysis by plotting the APQJ
pressure vs G-time plot. All these pressures decline methods were done using MinFrac software developed
by Meyer and Associates (Now a Baker Hughes’ product). The first method considers a linear regression
behavior at the early stage of the shut-in time and the fracture closure pressure is associated with the
deviation from the linear pressure decline behavior. To identify the peak of the curve, as a guide for
fracture closure picking, plot the square-root of shut-in time multiplied by the pressure derivative in the
square-root of time (t-½dP/dt-½).

The second method looks for a change in the slope of the pressure derivative d (log dP)/d (log dt) from a
linear behavior around 0.5 slope into a decreasing trend (the change is associated with fracture closure).
The pressure derivative curve must be around 0.5 for a dominant infinite-conductivity fracture flow regime
when the fracture is still open; the pressure derivative decreases as the fracture closes. For closure pressure
determination, we can also use the derivative slope of 3/2 which is a pressure derivative trend reflecting
the behavior represented when pressure change is dominated by the Nolte G-Function. When the pressure
change is no longer dominated by this behavior, the fracture is consider closed. Fracture closure pressure
can then be picked as the point on the log-log diagnostic plot when the logarithmic derivative departs from
the 3/2 slope (SPE-140136).
10

The final method looks for a change in the behavior in the pressure versus G-function plot by identifying
the change of slope of the GdP/dG derivative curve from linear increasing to flat or a decreasing trend.

Figure 8 shows the analysis of one station with the three proposed methods and the consistency in the
closing pressure values obtained.

Figure 8. Post-job analysis.

Analysis of the Results

Microfrac tests were performed successfully on two intervals from four initially selected. As seen before,
interpretation allowed the estimation of closure pressure related to minimum horizontal stress (See Figure
9). Additionally, from breakdown pressure, an estimation of maximum horizontal stress was performed
(See Figure 9).
 11

Figure 7. Calibration of minimum horizontal stress from closure pressure interpreted from Microfrac tests.

Such results allowed a proper calibration of the state of stress for this field and the resulting geomechanics
model. In general, strike slip regime was confirmed but, it is necessary to perform deeper investigation
for some intervals were Shmin magnitude is close to overburden (Sv). Such condition may lead to the
reduction of fracture efficiency and productivity.

The main advantages this type of test are:

 The availability to acquire information through several depths in a vertical well.

 Tests were performed in open hole conditions.
 Horizontal in situ stresses can be estimated.
 Time efficiency in comparison with classical DFIT tests.
 Post-mortem calibration of geomechanics model for future development.

Proposed Methodology

Departing from this succesfull experience in pilot well A from ChSN field, a methodology is proposed to
perform this kind of tests for unconventional reservoirs (See Figure 10). As seen before, a series of
activities are needed before performing the Micro-Frac tests to properly set pump pressures during the
different intervals and ensure the onset of breakdown. On the other hand, the intervals must be carefully
selected to ensure packers integrity and functionallity.
12

Figure 10. Proposed Methodology to perform Micro-Frac test on Unconventional Reservoirs.

The main activities are described as follow:

Geomechanics model
It is necessary, despite the possible lack of information the estimation of the stress field, pore pressure and
mechanical properties for the target field. From this model, the prognosis of wellbore stability can be
performed for the pilot well. Thus, a mud weight window is defined for the different stages of the well.

Monitoring while drilling

This activity, implies monitoring at the field, describing caving morphology, detecting drilling events like
influxes and losses related to the Equivalent Circulation Density (ECD). For instance, angular cavings are
related to shear failure which in turn suggests that an increase on mud density is needed to maintain
stability. Splintery cavings indicates that pore pressure is higher than mud density, so an increase of mud
density is also required. On the other hand, losses are related to re-opening of existing fractures and must
be avoided. In conclusion, monitoring while drilling, allows the adjustment of mud density and drilling
parameters like that the Rate of Penetration (ROP) to control ECD to reduce wellbore damage.

Prejob on Micro Fracture Test

Once the geomechanical model is established, a prejob is performed to simulate possible and critical
scenarios in terms of pump and packer’s pressures functionallities. Additionally, it allows for the analysis
of possible risks and their mitigation during the test.
 13

Drilling
Since drilling operations are monitored, main parameters can be optimized to reduce wellbore damage.

Logging and Image tool

It is highly recommended to run main well logs for the whole sections. Sonic slowness, shear slowness,
density and gamma ray are fundamental to obtain elastic parameters and the overburden (Sv) in the case
of density. Aditionally, caliper analysis must be considered for the analysis of wellbore damage with the
image interpretartion.

Image Interpretation
Breakouts (shear failure mechanism) and induced fractures (tensile failure mechanism) must be
interpreted from the image log to discard intervals with severe wellbore damage in combination with
caliper analysis.

Petrophysics Analysis
It is desired but no mandatory that some of the tested intervals agree with landing zones for the horizontal
wells.

Selection of intervals
By the grouping of previous information of intervals with no damage and petrophysics, select the intervals
considering that at least 3m long are needed for every test.

Micro-Fracture Tests
Perform the tests on intervals previously selected. It is highly recommended to complete at least three
cycles to propagate micro-fracture far from near wellbore zone affected by stress concentration.
Additionally, for every clycle, the lowest flow back rate is desired for propper interpretation of closure
pressure.

Update Geomechanics Model

The results of interpretation give an estimation of closure pressure which are assumed to be the minimun
horizontal stress (Shmin) and indirectly a value of maximum horizontal stress (Shmax) is estimated from
Breakdown pressure. Additionally, as Figure 10 indicates, real logs data is used to update elastic
properties. Wellbore image interpretation allows also for the calibration of shear collapse and maximum
horizontal stress (Shmax) and finally, stress regime profile is estimated by comparison of the stress
components.

Update Fracture Design

Once the geomechanics model is updated, inputs like elastic properties, overburden (Sv) and minimum
horizontal stress (Shmin) are used by Sstimulation Engineers to update fracture design. Morover, the stress
regime is reported like warnings in case of depth intervals detected with inverse regime.

Conclusions

 The Micro-Frac test produces reliable results with a high degree of repeatability.
 It is an alternative for DFITs due not only to its lower cost but to the possibility of moving
stations as many times as necessary.
14

 This type of tool is run in open hole condtions. Consequently, no casing and cementing
activities are required for the operation in comparion of DFITs tests.
 From the first in situ tests in Vaca Muerta formation, an integrated methodology is proposed
linking geomechanics and drilling to set proper conditions to run the tests.
 Tests results integrated with log information allows for the calibration of the initial
geomechanical model, allowing the determination of elastic properties, stress state and stress
regime which in turn are inputs for fracture design.
 High capacity pressure tool and a good pre-job analysis were the key to get a success formation
breakdown (BHP 8400 psi) and its reopening cycles.

Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank YPF S.A. and Baker Hughes for authorizing the publication of this paper.

Frequently asked questions

Can the Micro-Frac be made in a cased hole?

It is possible to perform this operation in a cased hole if the cement is good in the perforations interval
(which should be less than 1 meter). In addition, the compressive strength of the cement should be greater
than the compressive strength of the rock. Otherwise, we will fracture the cement instead of the rock.
Finally, it should be considered that the flexibility of modifying the intervals to fracture during the
operation is lost.

How long is this test?

As a rule of thumb, we can consider 3 hours per test.

What is the operational risk?

Because the tool is static for a long time, the main operational risk is to stick.
To avoid this, an option is to perform the operation assisted by drill pipe (pipe conveyed logging).
Using this mode of deployment, the test can be performed both in vertical wells and horizontal wells.

References
Al Shehhi, N., El-Hamawii, M., Moronkeji, D., Franquet,J. and Smith S. 2015. In-Situ Tectonic
Stress Measurement from Wireline Straddle Packer MicroFrac Testing: A Case Study in a
Carbonate Reservoir (U.A.E.). SPE-177626-MS.
Castillo, J. 1987. Modified Fracture Pressure Decline Analysis Including Pressure-Dependent
Leakoff. SPE 16417.
Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego, F. 1981. Transient Pressure Analysis for Fractured Wells. SPE-
7490-PA
 15

Cinco-Ley, H., Kuchuk, F., Ayoub, J., Samaniego, F. and Ayestaran, L. 1986. Analysis of Pressure
Tests Through the Use of Instantaneous Source Response Concepts. SPE 15476.
Evans, K., Lamont-Doherty and Engelder, J. 1996. A Study of stress in Devonian Shale: Part l-3D
Stress Mapping Using a Wireline MicroFrac System. SPE-15609.
Hagoort, J. 1981. Waterflood-induced hydraulic fracturing. PhD Thesis Delft Technical University,
Delft, The Netherlands.
Iha, T., Naial, R., Moronkeji, D., Franquet, J. and Smith, S. 2014. Wireline Straddle Packer
Microfrac Testing Enable Tectonic Lateral Strain Calibration in Carbonate Reservoirs. IPTC-
17301.
Kehle, R. 1964. Determination of Tectonic Stresses thought Analysis of Hydraulic Well Fracturing.
J Geophys Res 69 (2): 259-273.
Scott, M., Mazumder, S., Gibson, M. and Probst, P. 2013. Application of Open-Hole Diagnostic
Fracture Injection Test Results to Regionals Stress Interpretation in Bowen Basin Coals. SPE
167074.
Thiercelin, M., and Desroches, L. 1994. Open hole stress tests in shales Mesures de contraintes en
puits ouvert dans les argilites. Bohrloch-Spannungsmessungen in Tongesteinen. SPE 28144.

View publication stats